Comments on: $400K suit: wedding flowers were wrong color

By: OBQuiet

OBQuiet — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 18:58:21 +0000

On the subject of risk, you might consider it from a different standpoint. Who is better able positioned to judge how MUCH is at risk? The customer who knows how much THEY value the correct color or the florist who deals with people having varied views of the issue? In other words, if you needed to buy “flower insurance” who is in the better position to decide how much coverage they needed? The Customer, how knows what it is worth to them or the florist, who would have to over charge those how value it less and make excessive payouts to those who Valued it more.

I have no problem with having the florist PRICE the insurance since, as you said, she is in the better position to know how often an adverse outcome is expected and the costs(Courier dispatched to Florida days before the wedding) to insure against it. If this is spelled out in detail, you can price based on it. But you can expect to pay though the nose if you REALLY want the exact shade and 99% of the time, the florist will clean up. Its that 1% you are paying for.

By: Alice

Alice — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 11:51:11 +0000

Okay, let’s assume that florists have a tough job and a lot of pressure. And that flowers, being natural, are finicky and can come out the wrong color. Who should bear the cost of that risk? The customer, who may only order such a large and extravagant floral package once in their lives? Or the florist, who, by refunding the customer’s money because she did not provide the correct flower shade (or anything even close to it – the science of why doesn’t really matter when you’re dealing with a florist) can spread that risk among all her customers a small amount? It seems quite straightforward that the florist should have refunded the price in full at the very least but she did NOTHING of the sort – forcing the bride to litigate.

By: tp

tp — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 08:40:58 +0000

I too am a wedding designer. I can assure you that pink/green hydrangeas are NOT cheaper than “rust” hydrangeas.. actually, they are the same hydrangeas, but at different stages… the lighter being less mature, which all depends on climate and cooling conditions of the air. The rust are matured and this happens due to air temps. Maybe the florist should be sued for global warming?

ALL flowers can change hues due to soil conditions, temps, etc. BECAUSE THEY ARE NATURAL. Maybe the florist should have substituted silk flowers so they matched.

Flowers are tricky and that is why they are so expensive. I am sure this designer ordered the correct color, but due to the extremely warm temps, the flowers have not hit that stage. Nothing either party could do (wholesaler/retailer). The flowers looked gorgeous (photo found on web) and the stress of any wedding vendor is crazy. Unfortunately, you can’t control nature and being that the designer wanted to provide FRESH flowers for his client, it is hard to substitute different or new flowers (if they show up the wrong shade, etc) in such large quantities, a day before the wedding! These flowers need to be treated and designed. We are talking 22 table centerpieces AND other flowers. It sucks for both parties. I am sure the floral designer was aware the shade was not PERFECT, but what is he to do??? Bummer, but that is life and Nature. He did not do a “bait and switch” nor make any extra money here, he probably LOST money trying to correct the problem best he could!!!

By: markm

markm — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:33:31 +0000

I think that if I were on a jury listening to this, I would feel that:

1) If the flowers were wrong, and the desired colors/types were clearly agreed upon, then the flower shop owes a refund of at least part of the price.

2) Anything above a full refund is ridiculous.

3) Can we sentence the plaintiff to 3 years working on an Amish farm? Oh wait, I can’t think of any Amish farmers I hate that much…

By: John N.

John N. — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 11:52:10 +0000

I think the real victim here is the groom. He is now married to someone whose whole day can be ruined, RUINED I SAY, simply because an arrangement was different than expected. Oh, the horror! Oh, the drama. The poor sap had better watch his step in every little thing he does around the house.
And yes, Alice, I am taking a swipe at the bride. They could have put cactus on the table and it wouldn’t have RUINED THE WHOLE WEDDING DAY of any woman with any sense, maturity, and class. (whether you want to pay the florist for them is another matter, but over the top petulant pouting reflects poorly upon her)

By: OBQuiet

OBQuiet — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:52:51 +0000

Alice,

I think you are right. We simply do not know enough to condemn the bride outright. Perhaps the process is at fault for making her actions seem so egregious. The few news articles I have seen (yes, I admit that this is not the single focus of my life) do not paint a clear picture one way or the other and I should try to give her just as much the benefit of the doubt as I am giving the florists.

Again, having not seen the articles you mention and quote, I do not have the compete context. But it does not seem to me that saying you are being sued “over a color shade” constitutes an admission any more than saying you are being sued “over an accident” means you acknowledge that the event was an accident and that you were at fault. You might feel that the person claiming it was an accident did it deliberately to defraud your insurance company but simply used the terms of the claim to describe your legal situation. Maybe not the best legal phrasing but certainly common enough in everyday usage.

By: Alice

Alice — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 09:22:20 +0000

If the real issue is merely the way the legal system is set up – the anger, name-calling and rudeness (not you specifically OB, but generally, and, as being posted to this site) should be directed at the legal system and not this woman. The concept of claiming, in your complaint (not your demand, not in settlement negotiations), the full value of the wedding is nothing NEAR immoral. It is the maximum the claimants would ever consider claiming. It is a fair cap, personally – a cap no party to the case ever would consider remotely likely. But it is what it is – that’s the way our legal system works. The florist has consistently admitted that this is all “over a color shade” – therefore, she already admitted that she did not deliver the flowers she promised. So she is not, according to her own quotations, “completely in the right.”

By: tanj

tanj — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 04:00:24 +0000

I think this may be what Alice is referring to. http://www.nypost.com/seven/10162007/news/regionalnews/bridal_bloom__doom.htm?page=0 It seems that one of the problems is a different variant of flower was used, rather than a slight color difference.

By: OBQuiet

OBQuiet — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 23:32:09 +0000

Alice,

I forgot to ask,was that a dig about the Olive Garden? if so it too was very classy. If not, sorry but the words came across that way.

And I can well imagine getting an e-mail that I felt should not be dignified with a response. Particularly if the response could then be used as part of a lawsuit.

Having not seen the e-mail in question I choose to accept the florist contention that it was not worth responding to. Feel free to accept the bride view. Perhaps they will make it public. Unless it is copywritten.

By: OBQuiet

OBQuiet — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 23:21:16 +0000

Alice, it would help if you provided links. The NYT article linked here does not even include the word “exact”. Perhaps you are referring to a different article. Usually, it is the responsibility of the person providing the quote to provide a source rather than asking the person questioning it to show that it never occurred.

As far as claiming the entire cost of the wedding, that seems a bit much since they are quoted as saying, “It was a lovely wedding,” except for the flowers.

I would have only a small problem with our using the courts to settle all of these disputes if the costs were covered by the loser. As it is, the florist, who could be completely in the right, is forced to pay legal fees regardless. Plaintiffs know this and count on it providing an incentive to pay regardless of right or wrong.